Police Vehicle Evaluation - Model Year 2011

STATE OF MICHIGAN Department of State Police and Department of Management and Budget

2011 Model Year Police Vehicle Evaluation Program

Published by: Michigan State Police Precision Driving Unit November, 2010 Prepared by: Ms. Sheila Cowles, Michigan State Police

Photographs by: Mr. Ray Holt, Michigan State Police

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS

PAGE

Preface.......................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 3 Test Equipment ............................................................................................................................ 4 Police Package Vehicle Descriptions Police Package Vehicle Photographs and Descriptions ................................................................. 5 Police Package Vehicle Descriptions Summary ............................................................................20 Competitive Evaluation Vehicle Dynamics Testing Test Objective and Methodology ...................................................................................................22 Test Facility Diagram ....................................................................................................................23 Test Data ......................................................................................................................................24 Comparison Chart .........................................................................................................................26 Acceleration, Top Speed and Brake Testing Acceleration and Top Speed Test Objectives and Methodology....................................................27 Test Facility Diagram ....................................................................................................................28 Acceleration and Top Speed Data.................................................................................................29 Summary of Acceleration and Top Speed .....................................................................................34 Acceleration and Top Speed Test Data Comparison Charts .........................................................36 Brake Test Objectives and Methodology .......................................................................................38 Brake Test Data ............................................................................................................................39 Brake Test Data Comparison Chart ..............................................................................................45 Ergonomics and Communications Evaluation Test Objective and Methodology ...................................................................................................46 Test Data ......................................................................................................................................47 Test Data Comparison Chart.........................................................................................................48 Fuel Economy Test Objective and Methodology ...................................................................................................49 Test Data ......................................................................................................................................49 Test Data Comparison Chart.........................................................................................................50 Scoring and Bid Adjustment Methodology ...............................................................................51 Performance Comparison of 2010-2011 Test Vehicles .............................................................53 Motorcycle Performance Data, Description, and Photographs................................................61 About the National Institute of Justice, the Law Enforcement and Corrections Standards and Testing Program, the Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center System, and the Office of Law Enforcement Standards...............................................81

PREFACE The Michigan State Police Vehicle Test Team is pleased to announce the results of the 2011 model year Police Vehicle Evaluation. This year we tested ten vehicles in total, and four motorcycles. We appreciate your continued support and encouragement. The vehicles evaluated this year included the following:

POLICE CATEGORY Ford Police Interceptor (3.27:1)

4.6L

Ford Police Interceptor (3.55:1)

4.6L

Chevrolet Caprice 9C1

6.0L

Chevrolet Caprice 9C1 E85

6.0L

Chevrolet Impala 9C1

3.9L

Chevrolet Impala 9C1 E85

3.9L

Chevrolet Tahoe PPV 2WD

5.3L

Chevrolet Tahoe PPV 2WD E85

5.3L

Dodge Charger

3.6L

Dodge Charger

5.7L

MOTORCYCLES Harley-Davidson Electra Glide FLHTP Harley-Davidson Road King FLHP BMW R 1200 RTP Kawasaki Concours 14 ABS Police

11

GENERAL INFORMATION All of the cars were tested with a clean roof (no overhead light or lightbar) and without “A” pillar mount spotlights. We believe this is the best way to ensure all of the vehicles are tested on an equal basis. Remember that once overhead lights, spotlights, radio antennas, sirens, and other emergency equipment are installed, overall performance may be somewhat lower than we report. Each vehicle was tested with the tires that are available as original equipment on the production model. Specific tire information for each vehicle is available in the Vehicle Description portion of this report. All vehicles listed in this report were equipped with electronic speed limiters. Motorcycles were tested with equipment installed as provided by their respective manufacturer. Harley-Davidson chose to test their bikes with minimal equipment. BMW and Kawasaki chose to test their bike with the majority of the equipment installed. Chrysler Proving Grounds - Acceleration, Top Speed, & Braking Tests We had a full line up of test vehicles. We would like to thank Mr. Craig Hageman for the assistance we received from the staff at the Chrysler Proving Grounds. We experienced a rain delay during this portion of testing. It was suspended from 9:15 am until 12:40 pm. However, all portions were completed by the end of the day. We appreciate the support we received from General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Harley-Davidson, BMW and Kawasaki Motors Corp. during testing. This also was the fourth year of motorcycle testing and we continue to get great feedback on this important component to the testing lineup. We expect other manufacturers that produce law enforcement motorcycles to participate in the future. Michigan State Police Precision Driving Unit- Motorcycle Dynamics Sunday we completed the motorcycle dynamics testing with cool temperatures. This portion of the testing continues to grow. We had a large audience of observers, all interested in the new products being tested. Grattan Raceway - Vehicle Dynamics (High Speed Handling) Test The weather was great and all the dynamics tests were completed. The vehicles were loaded up and returned to the Precision Driving Unit where they were made ready for the Ergonomics portion of the test. After the second series of laps the Chevrolet Caprice 9C1 (regular fuel) was examined by GM personnel as the drivers expressed concern regarding the vehicles ability to remain stable while turning. The drivers experienced a floating sensation as the vehicle was driven at high speeds through various turns on the raceway. The drivers were also experiencing a noticeable vibration during heavy braking. GM engineers and technicians thoroughly checked the vehicle and found nothing of concern. While driving the Chevrolet Caprice 9C1 (regular fuel) during the third series of laps, the driver aborted the run due to a reduction of engine power. The vehicle was examined by GM engineers and technicians with no problems identified. When restarted, the vehicle returned to full power. This series of laps were run again at the end of the day to complete the test. This vehicle did not exhibit this problem again during the remainder of testing. After a thorough post test inspection, GM engineers discovered that pre-production, hand built, proto type front struts used on the Caprice 9C1 experienced internal parts failure and the rear suspension cradle required stiffer isolation th bushings. On October 7 , the MSP Test Team met GM personnel at the Grattan Raceway for further evaluation of the Chevrolet Caprice 9C1. With these two issues resolved, the test team found the handling of the Caprice to be much improved. The original times posted by the Chevrolet Caprice 9C1 on test day remain as the official results. The laps driven on th October 7 were merely for determining handling issues have been resolved. We recommend you review the information contained in this report and then apply it to the needs of your agency. This report is not an endorsement of products, but a means of learning what’s available for your officers so they can do their job effectively and safely. If anything in this report requires further explanation or clarification, please call or write. Lt. Keith Wilson Michigan State Police, Precision Driving Unit, 7426 North Canal Road, Lansing, Michigan 48913 Phone: 517-322-1789 Fax: 517-322-0725 E-mail: [email protected]

22

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS We would like to thank the following contributors. We are grateful for their support and encouragement toward our ultimate goal: a safe, successful testing program that benefits the law enforcement community nationwide and beyond. Colonel Eddie L. Washington, Jr., Director, Michigan Department of State Police Lt. Colonel Gary Gorski, Deputy Director, Field Services Bureau Lt. Colonel Kriste K. Etue, Deputy Director, Administrative Services Bureau Personnel from the Michigan Department of Management & Budget, Vehicle and Travel Services The National Institute of Justice, The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, Mr. Lance Miller, Mr. Alex Sundstrom, Lockheed Martin Aspen Systems Mr. Craig Hageman and personnel from Chrysler Proving Grounds Mr. Sam Faasen and personnel from Grattan Raceway Park Michigan State Police Volunteers – Ernie and Hazel Schutter, Austin & Reathel Waldron, Denny Steendam, Al & Betty Burnett and Jim Mayo The Michigan State Police Rockford Post for their assistance at Grattan Raceway. Michigan State Police Ergonomic Evaluators – MC Officer Niki Brehm, Tpr. Ernie Felkers, Tpr. Scott Carlson, Tpr. Todd Price, Tpr. Mike Fink, Tpr. Bennie Boyd, Tpr. Dave Cope, Tpr. Pat Roti, and Tpr. Randy Phare. Special thanks to General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Chrysler Motors, Harley-Davidson Motorcycle, BMW Motorrad USA, and Kawasaki Motors Corp. for their hard work in building and preparing the test cars and motorcycles. We are grateful for your dedication to law enforcement. Everyday law enforcement looks to these vehicles to do a list of duties varied and enduring. Finally, thanks to all in the United States and Canada who represent law enforcement and purchasing agencies for your constant encouragement and support. We are proud to make a contribution to the law enforcement community. Michigan State Police Vehicle Test Team:

33

TEST EQUIPMENT The following test equipment is utilized during the acceleration, top speed, braking, and vehicle dynamics portion of the evaluation program.

Corrsys Datron a Kistler Company 39205 Country Club Dr. Suite C20, Farmington Hills, Mi 48331 DLS Smart Sensor – Optical non-contact speed and distance sensor Correvit L-350 1 Axis Optical Sensor Shoei Helmets, 3002 Dow Ave., Suite 128, Tustin, CA 92780 Law Enforcement Helmet – Model RJ-Air LE Motorcycle Helmet – Multi Tech AMB i.t. US INC., 1631 Phoenix Blvd., Suite 11, College Park, GA 30349 AMB TranX extended loop decoder Mains adapter 230 V AC/12 V DC AMB TranX260 transponders AMMCO TOOLS, Inc., 2100 Commonwealth Ave., North Chicago, IL 60064 Decelerometer, Model 7350

44

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHS

55

6

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION MAKE Ford

MODEL Police Interceptor

SALES CODE NO. P71

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT

CUBIC INCHES 281

LITERS

4.6

EXHAUST

Dual

HORSEPOWER (SAENET)

Sequential Multiport Fuel Injection 250 @ 5000 RPM

ALTERNATOR

200 A

TORQUE

297 ft-lbs @ 400 RPM

BATTERY

750 CCA

COMPRESSION RATIO

9.4:1

FUEL SYSTEM

MODEL 4R70W TRANSMISSION

TYPE 4-Speed Electronic Automatic

LOCKUP TORQUE CONVERTER? Yes OVERDRIVE? Yes

AXLE RATIO

3.27

STEERING

Power Rack & Pinion

TURNING CIRCLE (CURB TO CURB)

40.3 ft

TIRE SIZE, LOAD & SPEED RATING

Goodyear Eagle RS-A P235/55R17 98W

SUSPENSION TYPE (FRONT)

Independent SLA with ball joint & coil spring

SUSPENSION TYPE (REAR)

4 bar link with Watts Linkage

GROUND CLEARANCE, MINIMUM

5.6 in.

BRAKE SYSTEM

Power, dual front piston, single rear piston, 4 circuit and ABS

BRAKES, FRONT

TYPE Vented disc

SWEPT AREA 273 sq. in.

BRAKES, REAR

TYPE Vented disc


FUEL CAPACITY

GALLONS

GENERAL MEASUREMENTS

LOCATION Exhaust joint

LITERS

71.9

WHEELBASE 114.6 in.

LENGTH

212.0 in.

TEST WEIGHT 4184

HEIGHT

58.3 in.

19.0

HEADROOM

FRONT

39.5 in.

REAR

37.8 in.

LEGROOM

FRONT

41.6 in.

REAR

38.0 in.

SHOULDER ROOM

FRONT

60.6 in.

REAR

60.0 in.

HIPROOM

FRONT

57.4 in.

REAR

56.1 in.

FRONT

57.6 cu. ft.

REAR

49.8 cu. ft.

COMB

107.5 cu. ft.

TRUNK

20.6 cu. ft.

INTERIOR VOLUME EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG)

CITY

14

HIGHWAY

21

COMBINED

EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG) Unadjusted

CITY

17.9

HIGHWAY

29.7

COMBINED

17 21.7

7 7

8

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION MAKE Ford

MODEL Police Interceptor

SALES CODE NO. P71

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT

CUBIC INCHES 281

LITERS

4.6

FUEL SYSTEM

Sequential Multiport Fuel Injection E85 Capable

EXHAUST

Dual

HORSEPOWER (SAE NET)

250 @ 5000 RPM

ALTERNATOR

200 A

TORQUE

297 ft-lbs @ 4000 RPM

BATTERY

750 CCA

COMPRESSION RATIO

9.4:1 MODEL 4R70W

TRANSMISSION

TYPE 4-Speed Electronic Automatic


AXLE RATIO

3.55

STEERING

Power Rack and Pinion, variable ratio


40.3 ft.


Goodyear Eagle RS-A P235/55R17 98W


Independent SLA with ball joint & coil spring


4 bar link with Watts Linkage


5.6 in.

BRAKE SYSTEM

Power, dual front piston, single rear piston, 4 circuit and ABS

BRAKES, FRONT

TYPE

Vented disc


BRAKES, REAR

TYPE

Vented disc


FUEL CAPACITY

GALLONS

19.0

LITERS

71.9

WHEELBASE 114.6 in.

LENGTH

212.0 in.

TEST WEIGHT 4139

HEIGHT

58.3 in.

LOCATION Exhaust joint

GENERAL MEASUREMENTS HEADROOM

FRONT

39.5 in.

REAR

37.8 in.

LEGROOM

FRONT

41.6 in.

REAR

38.0 in.

SHOULDER ROOM

FRONT

60.6 in.

REAR

60.0 in.

HIPROOM

FRONT

57.4 in.

REAR

56.1 in.

FRONT

57.6 cu. ft.

REAR

49.8 cu. ft.

COMB

107.5 cu. ft.

TRUNK

20.6 cu. ft.

INTERIOR VOLUME EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG) Label

CITY

14

HIGHWAY

21

COMBINED

17


CITY

17.9

HIGHWAY

29.7

COMBINED

21.7

9 9

10

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION MAKE Chevrolet

MODEL Caprice 9C1

SALES CODE NO. 1EW19

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT

CUBIC INCHES 364

LITERS

6.0

FUEL SYSTEM

SPFI – E85 Ethanol Capable

EXHAUST

Dual

HORSEPOWER (SAENET)

355 @ 5300 RPM

ALTERNATOR

170 amp.

TORQUE

384 @ 4000 RPM

BATTERY

700 CCA

COMPRESSION RATIO

10.4:1 6L80E

MODEL

TRANSMISSION

TYPE

6 – Speed Automatic


AXLE RATIO

2.92:1

STEERING

Power Rack and Pinion


38 ft.


P235/50R18 W Rated Goodyear Eagle RS-A


Independent strut. Coil springs, & stabilizer bar


Independent strut. Coil springs, & stabilizer bar


5.6”

BRAKE SYSTEM

Power, dual hydraulic, anti-lock

BRAKES, FRONT

TYPE

Vented Disc

SWEPT 310.6 sq in

BRAKES, REAR

TYPE

Vented Disc

SWEPT AREA 211.44 sq in

FUEL CAPACITY

GALLONS

19.0

LITERS

71.6

WHEELBASE

118.5 in.

LENGTH

204.2 in.

LOCATION Engine Cradle

GENERAL MEASUREMENTS TEST WEIGHT

4264 lbs.

HEIGHT

58.7 in.

HEADROOM

FRONT

38.7 in.

REAR

37.5 in.

LEGROOM

FRONT

42.2 in.

REAR

43.2 in.

SHOULDER ROOM

FRONT

59.1 in.

REAR

58.9 in.

HIPROOM

FRONT

56.6 in.

REAR

57.9 in.

FRONT

56.0 cu. ft.

COMB

112 cu. ft.

REAR 56.0 cu. ft. TRUNK 17.4 cu. ft. w/full size spare and auxiliary battery

INTERIOR VOLUME EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG) Label *

CITY

14

HIGHWAY

22

COMBINED

17

EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG) Unadjusted *

CITY

17.3

HIGHWAY

30.5

COMBINED

21.5

EPA Mileage EST (MPG) Label E85 *

CITY

14

HIGHWAY

22

COMBINED

17

EPA Mileage EST (MPG) Unadjusted E85 *

CITY

17.3

HIGHWAY

30.5

COMBINED

21.5

* Official fuel economy available January 2011 @ gmfleet.com

11 11

12

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION MAKE Chevrolet

MODEL Impala 9C1

SALES CODE NO. 1WS19

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT

CUBIC INCHES 237

LITERS

3.9

FUEL SYSTEM


EXHAUST

Single


233 @ 5600 RPM

ALTERNATOR

150 amp.

TORQUE

240 @ 4000 RPM

BATTERY

750 CCA

COMPRESSION RATIO

9.4:1 MODEL 4T65E

TRANSMISSION

TYPE 4-Speed Automatic


AXLE RATIO

3.29:1

STEERING

Power Rack and Pinion


38 ft.


Pirelli AL3 P225/60R16 V-Rated


Independent McPherson strut, coil springs & stabilizer bar


Independent Tri-Link coil spring over strut & stabilizer bar


7.1 in.

BRAKE SYSTEM

Power, dual hydraulic, anti-lock

BRAKES, FRONT

TYPE

Vented disc

SWEPT AREA 235.4 sq. in.

BRAKES, REAR

TYPE

Solid disc


FUEL CAPACITY

GALLONS

17.0

LITERS

64.3

WHEELBASE 110.5 in.

LENGTH

200.4 in.

TEST WEIGHT 3693

HEIGHT

58.7 in.

LOCATION Engine cradle


FRONT

39.4 in.

REAR

37.8 in.

LEGROOM

FRONT

42.3 in.

REAR

37.6 in.

SHOULDER ROOM

FRONT

58.7 in.

REAR

58.6 in.

HIPROOM

FRONT

56.4 in.

REAR

57.2 in.

FRONT

56.5 cu. ft.

REAR

55.7 cu. ft.

COMB

104.8 cu. ft.

TRUNK 18.6 cu. ft. w/ compact spare


CITY

17

HIGHWAY

24

COMBINED

20


CITY

21.2

HIGHWAY

33.8

COMBINED

25.5

EPA Mileage EST (MPG) Label E85

CITY

12

HIGHWAY

18

COMBINED

14

EPA Mileage EST (MPG) Unadjusted E85

CITY

15.5

HIGHWAY

24.7

COMBINED

18.6

13 13

14

VEHICLE TEST DESCRIPTION MAKE Chevrolet

MODEL Tahoe PPV – 2WD

SALES CODE NO. CC10706

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT

CUBIC INCHES 327

LITERS

5.3

FUEL SYSTEM


EXHAUST

Single


320 @ 5200 RPM

ALTERNATOR

160

TORQUE

340 ft-lbs @ 4000 RPM

BATTERY

730 CCA

COMPRESSION RATIO

9.5:1 MODEL 6L80E

TRANSMISSION

TYPE 6 – Speed Automatic Overdrive


AXLE RATIO

3.08

STEERING

Power – Rack & Pinion


39.0 ft.


Goodyear RS-A Police Radial P265/60R17, W Rated


Independent, single coil over shock with stabilizer bar


Multi-link with coil springs


8.00 in.

BRAKE SYSTEM

Vacuum-boost, power, anti-lock

BRAKES, FRONT

TYPE

Disc


BRAKES, REAR

TYPE

Disc


FUEL CAPACITY

GALLONS

26.0

LITERS

98.4

WHEELBASE 116.0 in.

LENGTH

198.9 in.

TEST WEIGHT 5311

HEIGHT

73.9

LOCATION Rear axle


FRONT

40.3 in.

REAR

39.2 in.

LEGROOM

FRONT

41.3 in.

REAR

39.0 in.

SHOULDER ROOM

FRONT

65.3 in.

REAR

65.2 in.

HIPROOM

FRONT

64.4 in.

REAR

60.6 in.

INTERIOR VOLUME *MAX. CARGO IS W/REAR SEATS FOLDED DOWN

FRONT

62.9 cu. ft.

REAR

57.68 cu. ft.

COMB

120.58 cu. ft.

*MAX. CARGO 108.9 cu. ft.

EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG) Label

CITY

15

HIGHWAY

21

COMBINED

17


CITY

18.3

HIGHWAY

29.4

COMBINED

22.1

EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG) E85 Label

CITY

11

HIGHWAY

16

COMBINED

13

EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG) E85 Unadjusted

CITY

13.4

HIGHWAY

22.2

COMBINED

16.3

15 15

16

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION MAKE Dodge

MODEL Charger

SALES CODE NO. 27A

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT

CUBIC INCHES 220

LITERS

3.6

FUEL SYSTEM

Sequential Port Fuel Injection

EXHAUST

Dual


291 @ 6400

ALTERNATOR

220 Amp

TORQUE

260 ft-lbs @ 4400

BATTERY

800 CCA

COMPRESSION RATIO

10.2:1 MODEL A580

TRANSMISSION

TYPE 5 Speed Electronic Automatic


AXLE RATIO

2.65:1

STEERING

Power Rack & Pinion


38.9


Goodyear Eagle RSA P225/60R 18 99V (B)


Independent High Arm SLA with Dual Ball Joint Lower, Coil Spring, Sway Bar


Independent Multi-Link, Coil Spring, Sway Bar


5.2 in.

BRAKE SYSTEM

Power, Dual Piston Front/Single Piston Rear, Anti-Lock

BRAKES, FRONT

TYPE

Vented Disc


BRAKES, REAR

TYPE

Vented Disc


FUEL CAPACITY

GALLONS

19

LITERS

72

WHEELBASE

120 in.

LENGTH

200.1 in.

HEIGHT

58.2 in.

LOCATION Fascia Belly Pan

GENERAL MEASUREMENTS TEST WEIGHT 4035 HEADROOM

FRONT

38.6 in.

REAR

36.7 in.

LEGROOM

FRONT

41.8 in.

REAR

40.1 in.

SHOULDER ROOM

FRONT

59.5 in.

REAR

57.9 in.

HIPROOM

FRONT

56.2 in.

REAR

56.1 in.

FRONT

55.6 cu. ft.

REAR

49.31 cu. ft.

COMB

104.9 cu. ft.

TRUNK

14.8 cu. ft.


CITY

19

HIGHWAY

26

COMBINED 21


CITY

23.2

HIGHWAY

36.6

COMBINED 27.8

17 17

18

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION MAKE Dodge

MODEL Charger

SALES CODE NO. 29A

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT

CUBIC INCHES 345

LITERS

5.7

FUEL SYSTEM

Sequential Port Fuel Injection

EXHAUST

Dual


370 @ 5150

ALTERNATOR

220 Amp

TORQUE

397 ft-lbs @ 4250

BATTERY

800 CCA

COMPRESSION RATIO

10.5:1 MODEL A580

TRANSMISSION

TYPE 5 Speed Electronic Automatic


AXLE RATIO

2.65:1

STEERING

Power Rack & Pinion


38.9


Goodyear Eagle RSA P225/60R 18 99V (B)


Independent High Arm SLA w/ Dual Ball Joint Lower, Coil Spring, Sway Bar


Independent Multi-Link, Coil Spring, Sway Bar


5.2 in.

BRAKE SYSTEM

Power, Dual Piston Front/Single Piston Rear, Anti-Lock

BRAKES, FRONT

TYPE

Vented Disc


BRAKES, REAR

TYPE

Vented Disc


FUEL CAPACITY

GALLONS

19

LITERS

72

WHEELBASE

120 in.

LENGTH

200.1 in.

HEIGHT

58.2 in.

LOCATION Fascia Belly Pan

GENERAL MEASUREMENTS TEST WEIGHT 4253 HEADROOM

FRONT

38.6 in.

REAR

36.7 in.

LEGROOM

FRONT

41.8 in.

REAR

40.1 in.

SHOULDER ROOM

FRONT

59.5 in.

REAR

57.9 in.

HIPROOM

FRONT

56.2 in.

REAR

56.1 in.

FRONT

55.6 cu. ft.

REAR

49.3 cu. ft.

COMB

104.9 cu. ft.

TRUNK

14.8 cu. ft.


CITY

16

HIGHWAY

25

COMBINED 19


CITY

19.3

HIGHWAY

34.6

COMBINED 24.1

19 19

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Ford Police Interceptor 3.27

Ford Police Interceptor 3.55

Chevrolet Caprice 9C1


ENGINE DISPLACEMENT – CU. IN.

281

281

364

237

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT – LITERS

4.6

4.6

6.0

3.9

SMFI

SMFI

SPFI

SPFI

ENGINE FUEL SYSTEM HORSEPOWER (SAE NET)

250

250

355

233

TORQUE (FT. LBS.)

297

297

384

240

COMPRESSION RATIO

9.4:1

9.4:1

10.4:1

9.4:1

AXLE RATIO

3.27

3.55

2.92:1

3:29.1

TURNING CIRCLE – FT. CURB TO CURB

40.3

40.3

38

38

4 Speed elec. auto

4 Speed elec. auto

6 Speed auto

4 Speed auto

4R70W

4R70W

6L80E

4T65E

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION MODEL NUMBER LOCKUP TORQUE CONVERTER TRANSMISSION OVERDRIVE TIRE SIZE

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

P235/55R

P235/55R

P235/50R

P225/60R

WHEEL RIM SIZE – INCHES

17

17

18

16

GROUND CLEARANCE – INCHES

5.6

5.6

5.6

7.1

BRAKE SYSTEM

Power, ABS

Power, ABS

Power, ABS

Power, Abs

BRAKES – FRONT TYPE

Vented Disc

Vented Disc

Vented Disc

Vented Disc

BRAKES – REAR TYPE

Vented Disc

Vented Disc

Vented Disc

Solid Disc

FUEL CAPACITY – GALLONS

19

19

19

17

FUEL CAPACITY – LITERS

71.9

71.9

71.6

64.3

OVERALL LENGTH – INCHES

212.0

212.0

204.2

200.4

OVERALL HEIGHT – INCHES

58.3

58.3

58.7

58.7

TEST WEIGHT – LBS.

4184

4139

4264

3693

WHEELBASE – INCHES

114.6

114.6

118.5

110.5

HEADROOM FRONT – INCHES

39.5

39.5

38.7

39.4

HEADROOM REAR – INCHES

37.8

37.8

37.5

37.8

LEGROOM FRONT – INCHES

41.6

41.6

42.2

42.3

LEGROOM REAR – INCHES

38.0

38.0

43.2

37.6

SHOULDER ROOM FRONT – INCHES

60.6

60.6

59.1

58.7

SHOULDER ROOM REAR – INCHES

60.0

60.0

58.9

58.6

HIPROOM FRONT – INCHES

57.4

57.4

56.6

56.4

HIPROOM REAR – INCHES

56.1

56.1

57.9

57.2

INTERIOR VOLUME FRONT – CU. FT.

57.6

57.6

56.0

56.5

INTERIOR VOLUME REAR – CU. FT.

49.8

49.8

56.0

55.7

INTERIOR VOLUME COMB. – CU. FT.

107.5

107.5

112

104.8

TRUNK VOLUME – CU. FT.

20.6

20.6

Gas

Gas

Gas *

E-85 *

Gas

14

14

14

14

17

12

EPA MILEAGE – CITY – MPG Unadjusted

17.9

17.9

17.3

17.3

21.2

15.5

EPA MILEAGE – HIGHWAY – MPG Label

21

21

22

22

24

18

29.7

29.7

30.5

30.5

33.8

24.7

EPA MILEAGE – CITY – MPG Label

EPA MILEAGE – HIGHWAY – MPG Unadjusted EPA MILEAGE – COMBINED – MPG Label EPA MILEAGE – COMBINED – MPG Unadjusted

17.4

18.6

17

17

17

17

20

14

21.7

21.7

21.5

21.5

25.5

18.6

*Official fuel economy available January 2011 @ gmfleet.com

20 20

E85

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Dodge Charger 3.6L

Dodge Charger 5.7L

Chevrolet Tahoe PPV

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT – CU. IN.

220

327

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT – LITERS ENGINE FUEL SYSTEM

3.6 SPFI

5.3 SPFI


291

345 5.7 SPFI 370

260

397

340

COMPRESSION RATIO

10.2:1

10.5:1

9.5:1

AXLE RATIO

2.65:1

2.65:1

3.08

38.9

38.9

39.0

5 Speed elec. auto

5 Speed elec. auto

6-Speed Automatic Overdrive

A580

A580

6L80E

LOCKUP TORQUE CONVERTER

Yes

Yes

Yes

TRANSMISSION OVERDRIVE

Yes

Yes

Yes

TORQUE (FT. LBS.)

TURNING CIRCLE – FT. CURB TO CURB TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION MODEL NUMBER

320

P225/60R

P225/60R

P265/60R

WHEEL RIM SIZE – INCHES GROUND CLEARANCE – INCHES BRAKE SYSTEM

18 5.2 Power, ABS

18 5.2 Power, ABS

17 8.00 Power, ABS

BRAKES – FRONT TYPE

Vented Disc

Vented Disc

Disc

BRAKES – REAR TYPE

Vented Disc

Vented Disc

Disc

19

19

26

72

72

98.4

OVERALL LENGTH – INCHES

200.1

200.1

198.9

OVERALL HEIGHT – INCHES

58.2

58.2

73.9

TEST WEIGHT – LBS.

4035

4253

5311

120

120

116

HEADROOM FRONT – INCHES

38.6

38.6

40.3

HEADROOM REAR – INCHES

36.7

36.7

39.2

LEGROOM FRONT – INCHES

41.8

41.8

41.3

LEGROOM REAR – INCHES

40.1

40.1

39.0

SHOULDER ROOM FRONT – INCHES

59.5

65.3

SHOULDER ROOM REAR – INCHES

57.9

59.5 57.9

HIPROOM FRONT – INCHES

56.2

56.2

64.4

HIPROOM REAR – INCHES

56.1

56.1

60.6

INTERIOR VOLUME FRONT – CU. FT.

55.6

55.6

62.9

49.3

49.3

57.68

INTERIOR VOLUME COMB. – CU. FT.

104.9

104.9

120.58

TRUNK VOLUME – CU. FT.

14.8

108.9

EPA MILEAGE – CITY – MPG- Label

14.8 Gas 19

Gas 16

Gas 15

E85 11

EPA MILEAGE CITY – MPG - Unadjusted

23.2

19.3

18.3

13.4

26

25

21

16

36.6

34.6

29.4

22.2

21

19

17

13

27.8

24.1

22.1

16.3

TIRE SIZE

FUEL CAPACITY – GALLONS FUEL CAPACITY – LITERS

WHEELBASE – INCHES

INTERIOR VOLUME REAR – CU. FT.

EPA MILEAGE – HIGHWAY – MPG - Label .EPA MILEAGE – HIGHWAY – MPG - Unadjusted EPA MILEAGE – COMBINED – MPG - Label EPA MILEAGE – COMBINED – MPG Unadjusted

65.2

21 21

VEHICLE DYNAMICS TESTING TEST OBJECTIVE Determine each vehicle’s high-speed pursuit or emergency handling characteristics and performance in comparison to the other vehicles in the test group. The course used is a 2-mile road-racing type configuration, containing hills, curves, and corners. The course simulates actual conditions encountered in pursuit or emergency driving situations in the field, with the exception of other traffic. The evaluation is a true test of the success or failure of the vehicle manufacturers to offer vehicles that provide the optimum balance between handling (suspension components), acceleration (usable horsepower), and braking characteristics.

TEST METHODOLOGY Each vehicle is driven over the course a total of 32 timed laps, using four separate drivers, each driving an 8 lap series. The final score for the vehicle is the combined average (from the 4 drivers) of the 5 fastest laps for each driver during the 8 lap series.

22

22

23 23

VEHICLE DYNAMICS TESTING Vehicles Ford CVPI 3.27 4.6L

Drivers GROMAK ROGERS MCCARTHY FLEGEL

Lap 1 01:40.90 01:40.60 01:40.70 01:40.60

Lap 2 01:41.10 01:41.00 01:41.40 01:41.10

Lap 3 01:41.10 01:41.40 01:41.50 01:41.10

Lap 4 01:41.20 01:41.40 01:41.60 01:41.20

Lap 5 01:41.20 01:41.50 01:41.70 01:41.30

GROMAK ROGERS MCCARTHY FLEGEL

01:39.80 01:40.70 01:41.00 01:39.90

01:39.80 01:40.90 01:41.10 01:39.90

01:39.90 01:40.90 01:41.30 01:40.30

01:40.00 01:41.00 01:41.30 01:40.40

01:40.30 01:41.00 01:41.40 01:40.40

Overall Average Ford CVPI 3.55 4.6L

01:41.18

Overall Average Chevrolet Caprice 9C1 6.0L


01:35.80 01:37.00 01:37.80 01:37.00

01:36.40 01:37.30 01:37.90 01:37.40

01:36.40 01:37.30 01:37.90 01:37.50

01:36.40 01:37.60 01:38.00 01:38.20

01:37.20 01:37.60 01:38.10 01:38.30


01:36.40 01:36.50 01:36.60 01:36.60

01:36.70 01:36.60 01:37.50 01:36.80

01:36.80 01:36.60 01:37.80 01:37.30

01:36.90 01:36.80 01:37.80 01:37.60

01:36.90 01:36.80 01:37.90 01:37.60

Overall Average

24 24

01:36.74 01:36.66 01:37.52 01:37.18 01:37.02


01:42.40 01:43.00 01:42.50 01:42.20

01:42.80 01:43.20 01:42.50 01:42.40

01:42.90 01:43.20 01:42.50 01:42.50

01:43.10 01:43.30 01:42.60 01:42.50

01:43.10 01:43.40 01:42.70 01:42.90


01:41.70 01:41.90 01:42.60 01:41.20

01:41.90 01:42.00 01:42.70 01:41.20

01:41.90 01:42.10 01:42.90 01:41.40

01:42.20 01:42.30 01:43.20 01:41.40

01:42.30 01:42.50 01:43.20 01:41.40

Overall Average Chevrolet Impala 9C1 3.9L E85

01:36.44 01:37.36 01:37.94 01:37.68 01:37.35

Overall Average Chevrolet Impala 9C1 3.9L

01:39.96 01:40.90 01:41.22 01:40.18 01:40.57

Overall Average Chevrolet Caprice 9C1 6.0L E85

Average 01:41.10 01:41.18 01:41.38 01:41.06

01:42.86 01:43.22 01:42.56 01:42.50 01:42.78 01:42.00 01:42.16 01:42.92 01:41.32 01:42.10

VEHICLE DYNAMICS TESTING Vehicles Chevrolet Tahoe PPV 5.3L

Drivers GROMAK ROGERS MCCARTHY FLEGEL

Lap 1

Lap 2

Lap 3

Lap 4

Lap 5

01:42.60 01:42.70 01:43.20 01:42.20

01:42.70 01:43.20 01:43.60 01:42.40

01:43.00 01:43.30 01:43.60 01:43.10

01:43.00 01:43.60 01:43.70 01:43.10

01:43.00 01:43.60 01:44.00 01:43.20

Average 01:42.86 01:43.28 01:43.62 01:42.80 01:43.14

Chevrolet Tahoe PPV 5.3L E85


01:41.60 01:42.20 01:42.90 01:41.90

01:41.70 01:42.30 01:43.10 01:42.00

01:42.20 01:42.40 01:43.20 01:42.30

01:42.20 01:42.70 01:43.20 01:42.40

01:42.20 01:42.80 01:43.30 01:42.60

Overall Average Dodge Charger 5.7L

01:42.46 GROMAK ROGERS MCCARTHY

01:39.10 01:36.80 01:36.70

01:39.20 01:37.60 01:37.00

01:39.40 01:38.00 01:37.00

01:39.50 01:39.00 01:37.10

01:39.80 01:39.30 01:37.80

01:39.40 01:38.14 01:37.12

FLEGEL

01:39.00

01:39.20

01:39.20

01:39.40

01:39.40

01:39.24

Overall Average Dodge Charger 3.6L Overall Average

01:41.98 01:42.48 01:43.14 01:42.24

01:38.47 GROMAK ROGERS MCCARTHY

01:37.50 01:37.90 01:38.40

01:37.80 01:38.10 01:38.80

01:38.00 01:38.30 01:38.90

01:38.30 01:38.30 01:38.90

01:38.40 01:38.90 01:39.00

01:38.00 01:38.30 01:38.80

FLEGEL

01:38.70

01:38.80

01:38.90

01:39.00

01:39.00

01:38.88 01:38.49

2525

26

seconds

Dodge Charger 5.7L

Dodge Charger 3.5L

Chevrolet Tahoe PPV E85

Chevrolet Tahoe PPV

Chevrolet Impala E85

Chevrolet Impala

Chevrolet Caprice E85

Chevrolet Caprice



2011 Vehicle Dynamics

106

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

ACCELERATION AND TOP SPEED TESTING ACCELERATION TEST OBJECTIVE Determine the ability of each test vehicle to accelerate from a standing start to 60 mph, 80 mph, and 100 mph, and determine the distance to reach 110 mph and 120 mph.

ACCELERATION TEST METHODOLOGY Using a DLS Smart Sensor – Optical non-contact Speed and Distance Sensor in conjunction with a lap top computer, each vehicle is driven through four acceleration sequences, two northbound and two southbound, to allow for wind direction. The four resulting times for each target speed are averaged and the average times used to derive scores on the competitive test for acceleration.

TOP SPEED TEST OBJECTIVE Determine the actual top speed attainable by each test vehicle within a distance of 14 miles from a standing start.

TOP SPEED TEST METHODOLOGY Following the fourth acceleration run, each test vehicle continues to accelerate to the top speed attainable within 14 miles from the start of the run. The highest speed attained within the 14-mile distance is the vehicle’s score on the competitive test for top speed.

Picture

27 27

28 28

ACCELERATION AND TOP SPEED TESTS TEST LOCATION:

Chrysler Proving Grounds

DATE:

MAKE & MODEL: Ford Interceptor 4.6L 3.27

BEGINNING TIME: 3:47 p.m..

WIND DIRECTION: 156°

WIND VELOCITY: 4.2 mph

September 18, 2010

TEMPERATURE:

68°

ACCELERATION

SPEEDS

TIME REQUIREMENTS*

RUN#1

RUN#2

RUN#3

RUN#4

AVERAGE

9.6 sec

9.17

9.01

8.97

8.88

9.01

16.4 sec.

14.79

14.52

14.75

14.40

14.61

27.1 sec.

24.84

24.10

24.88

23.78

24.40

0 – 60 0 – 80 0 – 100 DISTANCE TO REACH:

110 MPH

.64 mile

120 MPH

1.00 mile

TOP SPEED ATTAINED: 129 mph

MAKE & MODEL: Ford Police Interceptor 4.6L 3.55

BEGINNING TIME: 2:16 p.m.



TEMPERATURE:

69.8°

ACCELERATION

SPEEDS

TIME REQUIREMENTS*

RUN#1

RUN#2

RUN#3

RUN#4

AVERAGE

9.6 sec

8.88

8.88

8.95

8.78

8.87

16.4 sec.

14.57

14.62

14.69

14.54

14.60

27.1 sec.

24.48

24.28

24.74

23.99

24.37


110 MPH

.66 mile

120 MPH

______


*Michigan State Police minimum requirement.

29 29



DATE:

MAKE & MODEL: Chevrolet Caprice 9C1

September 18, 2010

BEGINNING TIME: 3:29 p.m. WIND DIRECTION: 119°


TEMPERATURE:

68°

ACCELERATION

SPEEDS

TIME REQUIREMENTS*

RUN#1

RUN#2

RUN#3

RUN#4

AVERAGE

9.6 sec

6.32

6.23

6.02

6.14

6.18

16.4 sec.

10.22

10.00

9.87

9.95

10.01

27.1 sec.

15.01

14.81

14.62

14.65

14.77


110 MPH

.35 mile

120 MPH

.48 mile


MAKE & MODEL: Chevrolet Caprice 9C1 E85




TEMPERATURE:

66.7°

ACCELERATION

SPEEDS

TIME REQUIREMENTS*

RUN#1

RUN#2

RUN#3

RUN#4

AVERAGE

9.6 sec

6.32

6.16

6.09

6.01

6.15

16.4 sec.

10.21

9.91

9.82

9.69

9.91

27.1 sec.

14.96

14.56

14.55

14.25

14.58

0 – 60 0 – 80 0 – 100

DISTANCE TO REACH:

110 MPH

.34 mile

TOP SPEED ATTAINED: 148 mph *Michigan State Police minimum requirement.

30 30

120 MPH

.45 mile



DATE:

MAKE & MODEL: Chevrolet Impala 9C1

September 18, 2010

BEGINNING TIME: 8:03 a.m. WIND DIRECTION: 180°


TEMPERATURE:

55.1°

ACCELERATION

SPEEDS

TIME REQUIREMENTS*

RUN#1

RUN#2

RUN#3

RUN#4

AVERAGE

9.6 sec

8.98

8.77

8.86

8.53

8.78

16.4 sec.

14.27

14.01

13.98

13.68

13.99

27.1 sec.

24.39

23.28

24.43

22.86

23.74


110 MPH

.60 mile

120 MPH

.85 mile


MAKE & MODEL: Chevrolet Impala 9C1 E85




TEMPERATURE:

69.4°

ACCELERATION

SPEEDS

TIME REQUIREMENTS*

RUN#1

RUN#2

RUN#3

RUN#4

AVERAGE

9.6 sec

8.83

8.64

8.65

8.60

8.68

16.4 sec.

14.12

13.83

13.90

13.76

13.90

27.1 sec.

23.30

22.82

23.01

22.64

22.94

0 – 60 0 – 80 0 – 100

DISTANCE TO REACH:

110 MPH

.58 mile

120 MPH

.83 mile


31 31



DATE:

September 18, 2010


MAKE & MODEL: Dodge Charger 5.7L WIND VELOCITY: 2.8 mph


TEMPERATURE:

70.4°

ACCELERATION

SPEEDS

TIME REQUIREMENTS*

RUN#1

RUN#2

RUN#3

RUN#4

AVERAGE

9.6 sec

6.09

6.22

6.22

6.42

6.24

16.4 sec.

9.64

9.66

9.76

9.86

9.73

27.1 sec.

14.90

14.83

14.99

15.24

14.99


110 MPH

.35 mile

120 MPH

.45 mile


MAKE & MODEL: Dodge Charger 3.6L



TEMPERATURE:

68.8°

ACCELERATION

SPEEDS

TIME REQUIREMENTS*

RUN#1

RUN#2

RUN#3

RUN#4

AVERAGE

9.6 sec

8.51

8.51

8.63

8.94

8.65

16.4 sec.

14.27

13.93

14.17

14.65

14.26

27.1 sec.

24.06

23.05

23.93

24.37

23.85


110 MPH

.63 mile


32 32

120 MPH

.89 mile



DATE:

MAKE & MODEL: Chevrolet Tahoe PPV

September 18, 2010



TEMPERATURE:

68.7°

ACCELERATION

SPEEDS

TIME REQUIREMENTS*

RUN#1

RUN#2

RUN#3

RUN#4

AVERAGE

10.0 sec

8.62

8.71

8.80

8.68

8.70

16.0 sec.

14.38

14.31

14.48

14.47

14.41

27.0 sec.

22.71

22.17

22.59

22.22

22.42


110 MPH

.58 mile

120 MPH

.86 mile


MAKE & MODEL: Chevrolet Tahoe PPV E85




TEMPERATURE:

68°

ACCELERATION

SPEEDS

TIME REQUIREMENTS*

RUN#1

RUN#2

RUN#3

RUN#4

AVERAGE

10.0 sec

8.18

8.22

8.28

8.27

8.24

16.0 sec.

14.00

13.72

14.01

13.67

13.85

27.0 sec.

22.11

21.24

21.96

21.42

21.68


110 MPH

.56 mile

120 MPH

.84 mile


33

33

SUMMARY OF ACCELERATION AND TOP SPEED Ford Police Interceptor 4.6 L 3.27

Ford Police Interceptor 4.6 L 3.55

Chevrolet Caprice 9C1 6.0L

0 – 20 mph

(sec.)

1.95

1.90

1.66

Chevrolet Caprice 9C1 6.0L E85 1.62

2.05

Chevrolet Impala 9C1 3.9L E85 2.01

0 – 30 mph

(sec.)

3.27

3.16

2.54

2.49

3.33

3.27

0 – 40 mph

(sec.)

4.70

4.62

3.61

3.55

4.63

4.60

0 – 50 mph

(sec.)

6.69

6.70

4.83

4.78

6.39

6.31

ACCELERATION*

Chevrolet Impala 9C1 3.9L

0 – 60 mph

(sec.)

9.01

8.87

6.18

6.15

8.78

8.68

0 – 70 mph

(sec.)

11.55

11.39

8.06

7.94

11.28

11.20

0 – 80 mph

(sec.)

14.61

14.60

10.01

9.91

13.99

13.90

0 – 90 mph

(sec.)

18.95

19.12

12.19

12.02

17.82

17.65

0 – 100 mph

(sec.)

24.40

24.37

14.77

14.58

23.74

22.94

TOP SPEED

(mph)

129

119

148

148

138

139

.66

.35

.34

.60

.58

.48

.45

.85

.83

DISTANCE TO REACH 110 mph

(miles)

.64

120 mph

(miles)

1.00

(sec.)

16.82

16.75

14.71

14.64

16.46

16.60

(miles)

85.78

84.80

99.85

100.26

88.09

87.72

QUARTER MILE Time Speed

34 34

SUMMARY OF ACCELERATION AND TOP SPEED

ACCELERATION*

Dodge Charger 5.7L

Dodge Charger 3.6L

Chevrolet Tahoe PPV

Chevrolet Tahoe PPV E85

0 – 20 mph

(sec.)

1.64

2.00

2.16

2.02

0 – 30 mph

(sec.)

2.60

3.44

3.41

3.20

0 – 40 mph

(sec.)

3.55

4.89

4.93

4.59

0 – 50 mph

(sec.)

4.76

6.47

6.76

6.36

0 – 60 mph

(sec.)

6.24

8.65

8.70

8.24

0 – 70 mph

(sec.)

7.78

11.33

11.33

10.86

0 – 80 mph

(sec.)

9.73

14.26

14.41

13.85

0 – 90 mph

(sec.)

12.30

17.86

17.94

17.20

0 – 100 mph

(sec.)

14.99

23.85

22.42

21.68

146

130

139

139

TOP SPEED

(mph)

DISTANCE TO REACH 110 mph

(miles)

.35

.63

.58

.56

120 mph

(miles)

.45

.89

.86

.84

Time

(sec.)

14.67

16.71

16.80

16.49

Speed

(miles)

98.63

86.86

87.07

87.82

QUARTER MILE

35 35

2011 ACCELERATION COMPARISON ACCELERATION TIMES 25

20

15

10

5

0 Ford P.I. 3.27

Ford P.I. 3.55

Chevrolet Caprice


Chevrolet Chevrolet Chevrolet Chevrolet Impala Impala E85 Tahoe Tahoe E85

(seconds) 0 - 60 mph

36

0 - 80 mph

0 - 100 mph

Dodge Charger 3.6L

Dodge Charger 5.7L

2011 TOP SPEED COMPARISON TOP SPEED ATTAINED 160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 Ford Police Interceptor 3.27

Chevrolet Caprice

Chevrolet Impala

Chevrolet Tahoe

Dodge Charger 3.6L

(miles-per-hour)

37

BRAKE TESTING BRAKE TEST OBJECTIVE Determine the deceleration rate attained by each test vehicle on twelve 60 – 0 mph impending skid (threshold) stops, with ABS in operation if the vehicle is so equipped. Each vehicle is scored on the average deceleration rate it attains.

BRAKE TEST METHODOLOGY Each vehicle makes two decelerations at specific predetermined points on the test road from 90 – 0 mph at 22 ft/s2, with the driver using a decelerometer to maintain the deceleration rate. Immediately after these “heat-up” stops are completed, the vehicle is turned around and makes six measured 60 – 0 mph impending skid (threshold) stops with ABS in operation, if so equipped, at specific predetermined points. Following a four (4) minute heat soak, the entire sequence is repeated. The exact initial velocity at the beginning of each of the 60 – 0 mph decelerations, and the exact distance required to make each stop is recorded by means of a non contact optical sensor in conjunction with electronic speed and distance meters. The data resulting from the twelve total stops is used to calculate the average deceleration rate which is the vehicle’s score for this test.

DECELERATION RATE FORMULA Deceleration Rate (DR)

=

Initial Velocity*(IV) squared 2 times Stopping Distance (SD)

= =

89.175 ft/s (60.8 mph x 1.4667*) 171.4 ft.

(IV)2 2 (SD)

=

EXAMPLE: Initial Velocity Stopping Distance

DR

=

(IV)2 2(SD)

=

(89.175)2 2(171.4)

=

7952.24 342.8

=

23.198 ft/s2

Once a vehicle’s average deceleration rate has been determined, it is possible to calculate the stopping distance from any given speed by utilizing the following formula: Select a speed; translate that speed into feet per second; square the feet per second figure by multiplying it by itself; divide the resultant figure by 2; divide the remaining figure by the average deceleration rate of the vehicle in question. EXAMPLE: 60 mph = 88.002 ft/s x 88.002 = 7744.352 / 2 = 3872.176 / 23.198 ft/s2 = 166.9 ft.

*Initial velocity must be expressed in terms of feet per second, with 1 mile per hour being equal to 1.4667 feet per second.

38 38

BRAKE TESTING TEST LOCATION: Chrysler Proving Grounds

DATE: September 18, 2010

BEGINNING Time: 2:05 p.m.

TEMPERATURE: 70.2°F BRAKE SYSTEM: Anti-lock

MAKE & MODEL: Ford Police Interceptor 4.6L

Phase I 2)

BRAKE HEAT-UP: (Two 90 –0 mph decelerations @ 22 ft.sec. TEST: (Six 60 – mph impending skid (ABS) maximum deceleration rate stops)

Initial Velocity 59.87 mph 59.87 mph 60.05 mph 60.13 mph 59.71 mph 59.51 mph

Stop #1 Stop #2 Stop #3 Stop #4 Stop #5 Stop #6

Stopping Distance 139.95 feet 139.80 feet 140.52 feet 140.95 feet 141.95 feet 136.60 feet

27.54 ft/s2

AVERAGE DECELERATION RATE HEAT SOAK

Deceleration Rate 2 27.55 ft/s 2 27.58 ft/s 2 27.60 ft/s 2 27.59 ft/s 2 27.02 ft/s 2 27.88 ft/s

(4 minutes)

Phase II 2)






27.15 ft/s2

AVERAGE DECELERATION RATE Phase III Evidence of severe fading? Vehicle stopped in straight line? Vehicle stopped within correct lane?

Yes/No No Yes Yes

OVERALL AVERAGE DECEL. RATE: Projected Stopping Distance from 60.0 mph

27.35 ft/s2

141.6 feet

39 39




TEMPERATURE: 70.3°F

MAKE & MODEL: Chevrolet Caprice 9C1 6.0

BRAKE SYSTEM: Anti-lock

Phase I 2)





30.58 ft/s2



(4 minutes)

Phase II 2)






29.80 ft/s2


Yes/No No Yes Yes


40 40

128.3 feet

30.19 ft/s2



BEGINNING Time: 8:50 a.m.


MAKE & MODEL: Chevrolet Impala 9C1 3.9L


Phase I 2)





27.67 ft/s2



(4 minutes)

Phase II 2)






27.73 ft/s2


Yes/No No Yes Yes


27.70 ft/s2

139.8 feet

41 41







Phase I 2)





29.02 ft/s2



(4 minutes)

Phase II 2)






29.13 ft/s2


Yes/No No Yes Yes


42 42

133.2 feet

29.08 ft/s2




TEMPERATURE: 68°F



Phase I 2)





28.95 ft/s2



(4 minutes)

Phase II 2)






28.88 ft/s2


Yes/No No Yes Yes


28.92 ft/s2

133.9 feet

43 43





MAKE & MODEL: Chevrolet Tahoe 5.3L PPV 2WD


Phase I 2)





27.77 ft/s2



(4 minutes)

Phase II 2)






27.07 ft/s2


Yes/No No Yes Yes


44 44

141.2 feet

27.42 ft/s2

2011 Brake Testing STOPPING DISTANCE

149

146

143

140

137

134

131

128

125 Ford Police Interceptor

Chevrolet Caprice

Chevrolet Impala

Chevrolet Tahoe

Dodge Charger 3.6L

Dodge Charger 5.7L

(in "feet" from 60.0 mph)

45

ERGONOMICS AND COMMUNICATIONS TEST OBJECTIVE Rate each test vehicle’s ability to: 1. Provide a suitable environment for the patrol officer in the performance of his/her assigned tasks. 2. Accommodate the required communications and emergency warning equipment and assess the relative difficulty of such installations.

TEST METHODOLOGY Utilizing the ergonomics portion of the form, a minimum of four officers (in this case 9) individually and independently compare and score each test vehicle on the various comfort, instrumentation, and visibility items. The installation and communications portion of the evaluation is conducted by personnel from DIT Communications, based upon the relative difficulty of the necessary installations. Each factor is graded on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 representing “totally unacceptable,” 5 representing “average,” and 10 representing “superior.” The scores are averaged to minimize personal prejudice for or against any given vehicle.

46 46

ERGONOMICS AND COMMUNICATIONS Ford Police Interceptor

Dodge Charger


Chevrolet Caprice

Chevrolet Tahoe PPV

Padding

7.78

7.56

7.11

7.56

7.33

Depth of Bucket Seat

7.56

7.56

7.11

7.00

7.89

Adjustability – Front to Rear

8.00

8.67

8.22

7.75

7.89

Upholstery

7.11

7.44

7.00

7.89

6.89

Bucket Seat Design

7.11

7.89

7.44

7.56

7.67

Headroom

8.78

8.44

7.78

6.89

9.78

Seatbelts

6.44

8.00

7.78

5.78

8.11

Ease of Entry and Exit

7.56

7.67

7.11

7.33

8.89

Overall Comfort Rating

7.00

8.22

7.00

7.78

8.11

Leg room – Front seat back

6.33

4.78

4.44

9.22

7.44

Ease of Entry and Exit

6.78

4.56

4.89

7.78

7.33

Clarity

7.33

7.44

8.00

7.33

7.89

Placement

7.56

7.11

8.11

7.78

7.56

Pedals, Size and Position

7.63

7.89

7.78

7.44

8.33

Power Window Switch

8.22

8.44

8.11

7.22

8.56

Inside Door Lock Switch

7.11

8.11

6.89

6.56

8.56

Automatic Door Lock Switch

8.11

7.67

6.22

6.56

8.00

7.00

8.11

6.89

7.22

8.56

8.00

6.33

7.78

7.78

8.11

8.00

7.78

7.56

7.22

7.78

Front (Windshield)

8.67

8.11

8.33

8.00

8.56

Rear (Back Window)

7.33

6.11

5.67

6.67

6.00

Left Rear Quarter

7.67

5.44

6.33

7.11

6.00

Right Rear Quarter

7.11

5.56

6.33

7.22

4.56

Outside Rear View Mirrors

7.22

6.89

4.56

5.56

9.33

Dashboard Accessibility

8.55

7.25

7.75

5.05

8.40

Trunk Accessibility

8.53

7.25

6.93

7.25

8.08

Engine Compartment

8.33

6.42

6.83

9.08

8.17

212.81

202.70

195.95

203.57

219.76

ERGONOMICS FRONT SEAT

REAR SEAT

INSTRUMENTATION

VEHICLE CONTROLS

Outside Mirror Controls Steering Wheel, Size, Tilt Release, and Surface Heat/AC Vent Placement and Adjustability VISIBILITY

COMMUNICATIONS

TOTAL SCORES

47 47

2011 ERGONOMICS/COMMUNICATIONS VEHICLE SCORES 240

235 230

225

220 215

210

205 200

195

190 185

180 Ford Police Interceptor

Dodge Charger

Chevrolet Impala

(points)

48

Chevrolet Caprice

Chevrolet Tahoe

FUEL ECONOMY TEST OBJECTIVE Determine the fuel economy potential of all vehicles being evaluated. The data used for scoring are both valid and reliable in a comparison sense, while not necessarily being an accurate predictor of actual fuel economy in police patrol service.

TEST METHODOLOGY The vehicles will be scored based on estimates for city fuel economy to the nearest 1/10th mile per gallon (mpg) developed from data supplied by the vehicle manufacturer and certified by the Environmental Protection Agency.

E.P.A. Miles Per Gallon

Vehicles Make/Model/Engine Ford Police Interceptor 3.27

4.6L SPFI


4.6L SPFI

Chevrolet Caprice 9C1*

6.0L SPFI

Highway

City Label

Unadjusted

Label

Unadjusted

Combined Label

Unadjusted

14

17.9

21

29.7

17

21.7

14

17.9

21

29.7

17

21.7

14

17.3

22

30.5

17

21.5

Chevrolet Caprice 9C1*E85 6.0L SPFI

14

17.3

22

30.5

17

21.5

Chevrolet Impala

3.9L SPFI

17

21.2

24

33.8

20

25.5


3.9L SPFI

12

15.5

18

24.7

14

18.6

Dodge Charger

3.6L SPFI

19

23.2

26

36.6

21

27.8

Dodge Charger

5.7L SPFI

16

19.3

25

34.6

19

24.1

Chevrolet Tahoe PPV

5.3L SPFI

15

18.3

21

29.4

17

22.1

Chevrolet Tahoe E85 PPV

5.3L SPFI

11

13.4

16

22.2

13

16.3

*Official fuel economy available January 2011 @ gmfleet.com

4949

2011 FUEL ECONOMY COMPARISON "CITY" EPA ESTIMATES 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 Ford P.I. 3.27

Ford P.I. Chevrolet Chevrolet Chevrolet Chevrolet Dodge 3.55 Caprice Caprice Impala Impala Charger 9C1 9C1 E85 3.9L E85 3.9L 3.6L

(miles-per-gallon)

50

Dodge Chevrolet Chevrolet Charger Tahoe Tahoe 5.7L PPV PPV E85

MICHIGAN STATE POLICE SCORING AND BID ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGY* STEP I: RAW SCORES Raw scores are developed, through testing, for each vehicle in each of six evaluation categories. The raw scores are expressed in terms of seconds, feet per second2, miles-per-hour, points, and miles-per-gallon. VEHICLE DYNAM. (seconds)

BRAKING RATE (ft/sec2)

ACCEL. (seconds)

TOP SPEED (mph)

ERGONOMICS & COMMUN. (points)

FUEL ECONOMY (mpg)

92.210

26.380

45.790

115.000

173.900

14.300

STEP II: DEVIATION FACTOR In each evaluation category, the best scoring vehicle’s score is used as the benchmark against which each of the other vehicles’ scores are compared. (In the Vehicle Dynamics and Acceleration categories the lowest score is best, while in the remainder of the categories the highest score is best.) The best scoring vehicle in a given category received a deviation factor of “0.” The “deviation factor” is then calculated by determining the absolute difference between each vehicle’s raw score and the best score in that category. The absolute difference is then divided by the best score, with the result being the “deviation factor.”

CAR MAKE MODEL

TOP SPEED

CAR “A”

115.000 .042

CAR “B”

118.800 .010

CAR “C”

117.900 .018

CAR “D”

120.000 0

EXAMPLE: Best Score (Car “D”) 120.000 -

Other Vehicle Score (Car “A”) 115.000

=

Absolute Difference 5

/

Best Score 120.000

STEP III: WEIGHTED CATEGORY SCORE Each vehicle’s weighted category score is determined by multiplying the deviation factor (as determined in Step II) by the category weight. RAW SCORE DEVIATION FACTOR WEIGHTED CATEGORY SCORE

=

10 points

Deviation Factor (Car “A”) .042 (category weight)

TOP SPEED (mph) 115.000 .042 .420

.042 X 10 = .420

*All mathematical computations are to be rounded to the third decimal place.

51 51

STEP IV: TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE Adding together the six (6) weighted category scores for that vehicle derives the total weighted score for each vehicle. EXAMPLE:

CAR

Car “A”

30 pts. VEH. DYN. (seconds)

25 pts. BRAKE DECEL. (ft/sec2)

92.210 .018 .540

45.790 .163 4.075

20 pts. ACCEL. (seconds)

10 pts. TOP SPEED (mph)

10 pts. ERGO/ COMM. (points)

5 pts. FULE ECON. (mpg)

26.380 0 0

115.000 .042 .420

173.900 .184 1.840

14.300 0 0

TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE

6.875

STEP V: BID ADJUSTMENT FIGURE The bid adjustment figure that we have chosen to use is one percent (1%) of the lowest bid price received. As an example, in this and the following two steps, the lowest bid price received was $15,238.00, which results in a bid adjustment figure of $152.38.

STEP VI: ACTUAL DOLLAR ADJUSTMENT The actual dollar adjustment for a vehicle is determined by multiplying that vehicle’s total weighted score by the bid adjustment figure as shown at right.

TOTAL WTD. SCORE

BID ADJ. FIGURE

ACTUAL DOLLAR ADJ. =

X 6.875

$152.38

$1,047.61

ACTUAL DOLLAR ADJ.

ACTUAL BID PRICE

ADJ. BID PRICE

STEP VII: ADJUSTED BID PRICE The actual dollar adjustment amount arrived at for each vehicle is added to that vehicle’s bid price. Provided other necessary approvals are received, the vehicle with the lowest adjusted bid price will be the vehicle purchased. (The amount paid for the purchased vehicles will be the actual bid price.)

+ $955.42

52 52

= $15,473.00

$16,520.61

PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS OF 2010 AND 2011 TEST VEHICLES The following charts illustrate the scores achieved by each make and model of vehicle tested for model years 2010 and 2011. The charts presented are for the following performance categories: Vehicle Dynamics Acceleration 0 – 60 mph Acceleration 0 – 80 mph Acceleration 0 – 100 mph Top Speed Braking (Calculated 60 – 0 mph Stopping Distance) The reader should bear in mind the following information regarding variables when reviewing the 2010 – 2011 performance comparison charts. While as many variables as possible are eliminated from a given year’s testing, those that occur over the span of a full year are sometimes impossible to eliminate. The acceleration, top speed, and brake testing of both the 2010 and 2011 model year vehicles were conducted in the latter half of September. Temperatures on the test day in September of 2009 ranged between 39.8° F at the start of testing to a high of approximately 57.5° F during the afternoon. Temperatures during the testing this year varied, ranging between 61° F when testing started, to an afternoon high of 75° F. Such things as temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure affect the performance of internal combustion engines and brake components, and may cause minor differences from one year’s evaluation to the next. Another factor to be considered is the individual differences between two cars of the same make and model. The test cars that we evaluate are representative of their given make and model. Other cars of the same make and model will not, however, be exactly the same, particularly when it comes to performance. (It is well known that two consecutive cars off the same assembly line will perform slightly differently from each other.) Minor differences in performance from year to year within the same make and model are not only possible, but are to be expected.

53 53

2010-11 Vehicle Dynamics Comparison LAP TIMES 106

104

102

100

98

96 Ford Police Ford Police Interceptor Interceptor 3.55 3.27

Chevrolet Caprice


Chevrolet Chevrolet Impala Impala E85

(seconds) 2011

54

2010

Chevrolet Tahoe

Chevrolet Tahoe E85

Dodge Charger 3.6L

Dodge Charger 5.7L

2010-11 ACCELERATION COMPARISON 0-60 MPH

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1



Chevrolet Impala


Chevrolet Tahoe

Chevrolet Tahoe E85

Dodge Dodge Charger 3.6L Charger 5.7L

(seconds) 2011

2010

55


16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Ford Police Interceptor 3.27


Chevrolet Impala


Chevrolet Tahoe

(seconds) 2011

56

2010

Chevrolet Tahoe E85



30

25

20

15

10

5



Chevrolet Impala


Chevrolet Tahoe

Chevrolet Tahoe E85


(seconds) 2011

2010

57

2010-11 TOP SPEED COMPARISON TOP SPEED ATTAINED 150 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 Ford P.I. 3.27 Ford P.I. 3.55

Chevrolet Impala


Chevrolet Tahoe

(miles per hour) 2011

58

2010

Chevrolet Tahoe E85


2010-11 BRAKE TESTING COMPARISON STOPPING DISTANCES

160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Ford Police Interceptor 3.27

Chevrolet Impala

Chevrolet Tahoe

Dodge Charger 3.6L

Dodge Charger 5.7L

(in "feet" from 60 mph) 2011

2010

59

60

MOTORCYCLES Like many law enforcement agencies, the Michigan State Police used motorcycles until late 1941 and then switched to automobiles. The Michigan State Police rekindled interest in motorcycles for day to day patrol operations in 1993. In 2004, Michigan State Police headquarters asked if we had additional information as a resource for our purchasing decisions regarding motorcycles. During that time, we were given direction to expand vehicle testing to include motorcycle testing. We would like to thank Harley-Davidson, BMW, and Kawasaki for participating and providing their assistance in preparation for this year’s successful testing program. We are constantly evaluating our various tests with the manufacturers and the law enforcement industry to provide you with the most objective test data available. While there are many similarities to automobiles, there are also quite a few differences. This year we conducted motorcycle brake testing on our track at the Precision Driving Unit in Lansing. Our facility provides a very flat and consistent surface for this type of testing. Thus, better information is provided to the reader as to the braking capabilities of each motorcycle. During brake testing the BMW R1200 RTP displayed rear wheel lift. Each stop during the test is a full ABS stop using both brakes. On several runs the rear wheel of the motorcycle would lift from the pavement as the motorcycle slowed near the end of the stop. On one occasion the rider had to abort a run because of the severity. The BMW R 1200 RTP completed the brake test with no other issues. It should be noted the rear wheel lift displayed during brake testing, was not an issue during the dynamics portion of the testing. When looking at the data, it is very important for the reader to apply your mission requirements to the motorcycle you are considering so you may make an appropriate decision. This report is not an endorsement of products, but a means of learning what’s available for your officers so they can do their job more effectively and safely. If anything in this report requires further explanation or clarification, please call or write the Michigan State Police Precision Driving Unit.

61 61

62

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION MAKE Harley-Davidson

MODEL FLHP

SALES CODE NO. N/A

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT

CUBIC CENTIMETERS 1690

CUBIC INCHES

FUEL SYSTEM

EFI

EXHAUST

BORE & STROKE

3.875 x 4.375 in

ALTERNATOR 50 amp

TORQUE

102 ft-lbs @ 3500 RPM

BATTERY

COMPRESSION RATIO

9.6:1

TRANSMISSION

PRIMARY DRIVE 34/46

GEAR RATIO

2.875 overall

LEAN ANGLE

LEFT

CLUTCH

Wet multiple plate

WHEELS/TIRES

Wheels/Slotted Disk Cast Aluminum front and rear / Front 17 x 3 / Rear 16 x 5 Tires / Front Dunlop D407F 130/80B17 Rear Dunlop D407 180/65B16

FRONT SUSPENSION

FORK ANGLE

REAR SUSPENSION

Swing Arm w/ Air Adjustable Shocks

SUSPENSION TRAVEL

FRONT


5.1 in.

BRAKE SYSTEM

Hydraulic Disc / Independent Front & Rear ABS

BRAKES, FRONT

TYPE

Dual Disc

SWEPT AREA

180sq in.

BRAKES, REAR

TYPE

Single Disc

SWEPT AREA

90sq in.

FUEL CAPACITY

GALLONS

6

LITERS

22.71

OIL CAPACITY

4 Qts


WHEELBASE 63.54 in.

LENGTH

95.14 in.

TEST WEIGHT 845 lbs.

OVERALL HEIGHT

55.1 in.

31 Deg

4.6 in.

SEAT HEIGHT EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG)

CITY

29.25°

35

103 Crossover Dual

28 Amp Hour 270 CCA

FINAL DRIVE

32/68

33 Deg

RIGHT

26°

RAKE

3.0 in.

REAR

27.3 in. laden HIGHWAY

54

COMBINED

44.5

63 63

64

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION MAKE Harley-Davidson

MODEL FLHTP

SALES CODE NO. N/A

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT


CUBIC INCHES

FUEL SYSTEM

EFI

EXHAUST

BORE & STROKE

3.875 x 4.375 in

ALTERNATOR 50 amp

TORQUE

102 ft-lbs @ 3500 RPM

BATTERY

COMPRESSION RATIO

9.6:1

TRANSMISSION

PRIMARY DRIVE

GEAR RATIO

2.875 overall

LEAN ANGLE

LEFT

CLUTCH

Wet multiple plate

WHEELS/TIRES

Wheels / Slotted Disk Cast Aluminum front and rear / Front 17 x 3 / Rear 16 x 5 Tires / Front Dunlop D407F 130/80B 17 Rear Dunlop D407 180/65B16

FRONT SUSPENSION

FORK ANGLE

REAR SUSPENSION

Swing Arm w/ Air Adjustable Shocks

SUSPENSION TRAVEL

FRONT


5.1 in.

BRAKE SYSTEM

Hydraulic Disc / Independent Front & Rear ABS

BRAKES, FRONT

TYPE

Dual Disc

SWEPT AREA 180sq in.

BRAKES, REAR

TYPE

Single Disc

SWEPT AREA 90sq in.

FUEL CAPACITY

GALLONS

6.0

LITERS

22.71

OIL CAPACITY

4.0 Qts


WHEELBASE 63.54 in.

LENGTH

95.14 in.

TEST WEIGHT 849 lbs.

OVERALL HEIGHT 61 in.

34/46

31°

29.25°

4.6 in.

Crossover Dual

28 amp hour 270 CCA

FINAL DRIVE

RIGHT

RAKE

REAR

103

32/68

33°

26°

3.0 in.

SEAT HEIGHT 27.3 in. laden EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG)

CITY

35

HIGHWAY

54

COMBINED 44.5

65 65

66

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION MAKE BMW

MODEL R1200RT-P

SALES CODE NO. 08RB

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT


Engine

FUEL SYSTEM

BMSK-P Injection

BORE & STROKE

101 mm. x 73 mm.

EXHAUST Stainless Steel with Catalytic Converter ALTERNATOR 720 W

TORQUE

85 ft-lbs @ 6,000 rpm.

COMPRESSION RATIO

12.0:1

TRANSMISSION

PRIMARY DRIVE Gear 1:1.882

GEAR RATIO

1:2.75 rear drive ratio

LEAN ANGLE

LEFT

CLUTCH

Self-adjusting Hydraulic Actuating Single Plate Dry Clutch

WHEELS/TIRES

REAR SUSPENSION

Die-cast Aluminum MTH2 Rim Profile fitted with Run-Flat Tires (meets California Highway Patrol Run-Flat Protocol)/Tires Dunlop Sport Max F-120/70 ZR17 R-180/55 ZR17 FORK ANGLE 63.4 RAKE Castor in normal BMW Telelever position 4.3 in. BMW Evo Paralever

SUSPENSION TRAVEL

FRONT


5.125 in.

BRAKE SYSTEM

BMW/ABS Partially Integrated Brake System

BRAKES, FRONT

TYPE

Dual 12.6 in. Disc


BRAKES, REAR

Single


FUEL CAPACITY

TYPE Disc GALLONS

OIL CAPACITY

4.0 Qts.


WHEELBASE 58.4 in.

FRONT SUSPENSION

BATTERY 2 19 Amp Ah Gel Maintenance-Free

46°

TEST WEIGHT

677

*SEAT HEIGHT

32.2 in.

Shaft w/ring &

FINAL DRIVE pinion gear

46°

RIGHT

4.7 in.

7.1

2-Cylinder

REAR

10.4in.

5.3 in.

LITERS

27

LENGTH

87.8 in.

OVERALL HEIGHT

56.3 in.

COMBINED EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG) CITY N/A HIGHWAY 48 @ 75mph 65 @ 55mph (Based on DIN standard test) *Seat height has two adjustment positions. A low seat is available making the seat height 31”.

N/A

67 67

68

TEST DESCRIPTION SHEET SALES CODE NO.

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT

MODEL Concours 14 ABS Police CUBIC CENTIMETERS 1352

FUEL SYSTEM

FI, Mikuni 40EIDW x 4

EXHAUST

BORE & STROKE

84.0 mm x 61.0 mm

ALTERNATOR

TORQUE

102 lb/ft @ 6,200 rpm

BATTERY 2 x 14 Amp Ah Maintenance-Free

COMPRESSION RATIO

10.7:1

TRANSMISSION GEAR RATIO

PRIMARY DRIVE Gear 1:1.556 1 : 2.036 rear drive ratio

LEAN ANGLE

LEFT

CLUTCH

Wet, multi disc

WHEELS/TIRES FRONT SUSPENSION

Cast aluminum rims, Bridgestone BT021 120/70ZR17, 190/50ZR17 (passed California Highway Patrol run flat protocol) FORK ANGLE RAKE 26.1°

REAR SUSPENSION

Tetra lever and Uni Trak®

SUSPENSION TRAVEL

FRONT


4.92 inches

BRAKE SYSTEM

K-ACT ABS – 2 link settings, non-linked below 13 mph

BRAKES, FRONT

FUEL CAPACITY

TYPE Dual floating 310mm petal discs, 4 piston, radial mount calipers TYPE Single 250mm petal disc GALLONS 5.8 Gal.

OIL CAPACITY

5 qts.


WHEELBASE

MAKE

Kawasaki

BRAKES, REAR

47 degrees

4.4 inches

59.8 inches

TEST WEIGHT 767. SEAT HEIGHT EPA MILEAGE EST. (MPG)

CITY

Inline 4-Cyl.

ENGINE

4 into 1 581 watts

Shaft

FINAL DRIVE

48 degrees

RIGHT

REAR

5.3 inches

SWEPT AREA 164 in/sq.

SWEPT AREA 65 in/sq. LITERS

22 L.

LENGTH 87.8 inches OVERALL HEIGHT 52.9”

31.0 inches HIGHWAY

COMBINED

36*

Note: * FTP (Federal Test Procedure) mileage figures indicate 36 mpg during exhaust emission test.

69 69

TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Harley-Davidson FLHP 1690

Harley-Davidson FLHTP 1690

BMW R-1200 RT-P 1170

Kawasaki Concours 1352

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT–CU. IN.

103

103

72

83

ENGINE FUEL SYSTEM

EFI

EFI

EFI

Crossover Dual

Crossover Dual

Injection Stainless Steel

3.875x4.375 (inches) 50 amp

3.875x4.375 (inches) 50 amp

102

102

12v 28 amp/hour

12v 28 amp/hour

9.6:1

TRANSMISSION

CUBIC CENTIMETERS

EXHAUST BORE & STROKE

4 into 1

101x73 (mm)

84.0 x 61.0 (mm)

720 watts

581 watts

9.6:1

85 (2) 12v 19 amp/hour 12.0:1

102 (2) 12v 14 amp/hour 10.7:1

6-Speed

6-Speed

6-Speed

6-Speed

PRIMARY DRIVE

34/46

34/46

1:1.556

FINAL DRIVE

32/68

32/68

GEAR RATIO

1:2.036

ALTERNATOR TORQUE - FT. LBS. BATTERY COMPRESSION RATIO

2.875

2.875

1:1.882 Shaft w/ring & pinion 1:2.75

LEAN ANGLE - LEFT

31

31

46

47

LEAN ANGLE – RIGHT

33

33

48

CLUTCH

Wet multi plate

Wet multi plate

46 Dry single plate

WHEELS

3x16 MT/90-16 72H 29.25

3x16 MT/90-16 72H 29.25

26

26

Swing Arm

Swing Arm

SUSPENSION TRAVEL – FRONT

4.6 in.

SUSPENSION TRAVEL – BACK

FORK ANGLE RAKE

Alum. MTH2

Shaft

Wet, multi disc Cast Alum

63.4 26.1 Tetra Lever

4.6 in.

4.3 in. EVO Paralever 4.7 in.

3.0 in.

3.0 in.

5.3 in.

5.3 in.

GROUND CLEARANCE-MINIMUM

5.1 in.

5.1 in.

5.125 in.

4.92 in.

BRAKE SYSTEM

Disc.

Disc.

IABS

K-ACT ABS

FRONT SWEPT AREA (sq. in.)

180

180

186

164

REAR SWEPT AREA (sq. in.)

90

90

62

65

FUEL CAPACITY – GALLONS

6

6

7.1

5.8

FUEL CAPACITY – LITERS

22.71

22.71

27

22

OIL CAPACITY – QUARTS

4

4

4

5

WHEELBASE

63.54

63.54

58.4

59.8

LENGTH

95.14

95.14

87.8

87.8

WEIGHT

845

849

677

767

OVERALL HEIGHT

55.1

61

56.3

52.9

SEAT HEIGHT

27.3

27.3

32.2

31

EPA MILEAGE – CITY

35

35

N/A

N/A

EPA MILEAGE - HIGHWAY

54

54

48 @ 75mph 65 @ 55mph

Combined

REAR SUSPENSION

70 70

4.4 in.

36

MOTORCYCLE DYNAMICS TESTING MOTORCYCLE DYNAMICS TEST OBJECTIVE Determine each motorcycle’s high speed handling characteristics and performance in comparison to other motorcycles. The course used contains 9 turns and curves (including a 90 degree left turn, a switch back, a sweeping turn, a high speed turn and a decreasing radius, with different braking requirements) and is 1 mile in length. The course simulates actual conditions encountered in pursuit or emergency driving situations in the field, with the exception of other traffic. The evaluation is a true test of the vehicle manufacturers in offering balanced packages of acceleration capabilities, suspension components, and braking characteristics.

MOTORCYCLE DYNAMICS TEST METHODOLOGY Each motorcycle is driven using four separate riders for a six lap series. The best 5 out of six laps for each rider will be totaled for a cumulative time. The cumulative time is the score for each driver. The final score of each motorcycle is the combined average from the four rider’s cumulative times.

71

71

2011 MOTORCYCLE DYNAMICS VEHICLES Harley-Davidson FLHTP Electra Glide Overall Average Harley-Davidson FLHP Road King Overall Average BMW R1200 RTP

Overall Average Kawasaki Concours 14 ABS Police Overall Average

72

72

DRIVERS GROMAK JOHNSON TRAMMEL FLEGEL GROMAK JOHNSON TRAMMEL FLEGEL GROMAK JOHNSON TRAMMEL FLEGEL GROMAK JOHNSON TRAMMEL FLEGEL

COMBINED CUMMULATIVE* 06:07.20 06:03.60 06:16.40 06:04.70 06:07.98 06:09.80 06:06.70 06:14.00 06:04.10 06:08.65 05:35.00 05:40.30 05:41.90 05:31.50 05:37.18 05:41.10 05:41.60 05:46.20 05:35.30 05:41.05

MOTORCYCLE ACCELERATION AND TOP SPEED TESTING ACCELERATION TEST OBJECTIVE Determine the ability of each test motorcycle to accelerate from a standing start to 60 mph, 80 mph, and 100 mph.

ACCELERATION TEST METHODOLOGY Using a Correvit L-350 1 Axis Optical Sensor, each motorcycle is driven through four acceleration sequences, two northbound and two southbound, to allow for wind direction. The four resulting times for each target speed are averaged and the average times used to derive scores on the competitive test for acceleration.

TOP SPEED TEST OBJECTIVE Determine the actual top speed attainable by each test motorcycle within a distance of 10 miles from a standing start.

TOP SPEED TEST METHODOLOGY Following the fourth acceleration run, each test motorcycle will continue to accelerate to the top speed attainable within 10 miles from the start of the run. The highest speed attained within the 10-mile distance will be the vehicle’s score on the competitive test for top speed.

73 73

SUMMARY OF ACCELERATION & TOP SPEED

ACCELERATION*

HarleyDavidson Electra Glide

HarleyDavidson Road King

BMW RTP

Kawasaki Concours

0 – 20 mph

(sec.)

1.31

1.26

1.52

1.73

0 – 30 mph

(sec.)

2.18

2.08

2.15

2.41

0 – 40 mph

(sec.)

3.11

2.97

2.85

3.00

0 – 50 mph

(sec.)

4.43

4.23

3.81

3.58

0 – 60 mph

(sec.)

5.97

5.76

4.70

4.50

0 – 70 mph

(sec.)

8.03

7.63

5.88

5.32

0 – 80 mph

(sec.)

10.63

10.11

7.22

6.54

0 – 90 mph

(sec.)

15.34

14.11

9.10

7.74

0 – 100 mph

(sec.)

24.94

21.36

11.46

9.70

TOP SPEED

(mph)

106

108

127

131

QUARTER MILE Time

(sec.)

14.85

14.61

13.21

12.66

Speed

(mph)

89.28

91.02

105.95

112.17

(Picture)

74 74

BRAKE TESTING BRAKE TEST OBJECTIVE Determine the deceleration rate attained by each test motorcycle on twenty 60 – 0 mph impending skid (threshold) stops, with ABS in operation if the motorcycle is so equipped. Each bike will be scored on the average deceleration rate it attains.

BRAKE TEST METHODOLOGY Each motorcycle makes ten measured 60 – 0 mph impending skid (threshold) stops with ABS in operation, if so equipped, at specific predetermined points. After a one-mile lap to cool the brakes, the entire sequence is repeated. The exact initial velocity at the beginning of each of the 60 – 0 mph decelerations, and the exact distance required to make each stop, is recorded by means of a non contact optical sensor in conjunction with electronic speed and distance meters. The data resulting from the twenty total stops is used to calculate the average deceleration rate which is the motorcycle’s score for this test.

DECELERATION RATE FORMULA Deceleration Rate (DR)

=

Initial Velocity*(IV) squared 2 times Stopping Distance (SD)

= =

89.175 ft/s (60.8 mph x 1.4667*) 171.4 ft.

(IV)2 2 (SD)

=

EXAMPLE: Initial Velocity Stopping Distance

DR

=

(IV)2 2(SD)

=

(89.175)2 2(171.4)

=

7952.24 342.8

=

23.198 ft/s2

Once a motorcycle’s average deceleration rate has been determined, it is possible to calculate the stopping distance from any given speed by utilizing the following formula: Select a speed; translate that speed into feet per second; square the feet per second figure by multiplying it by itself; divide the resultant figure by 2; divide the remaining figure by the average deceleration rate of the motorcycle in question. EXAMPLE: 60 mph = 88.002 ft/s x 88.002 = 7744.352 / 2 = 3872.176 / 23.198 ft/s2 = 166.9 ft.

75 75

BRAKE TESTING TEST LOCATION: MSP Precision Drive Track



TEMPERATURE: 58.8°F BRAKE SYSTEM: Anti-lock

MAKE & MODEL: Harley-Davidson Road King FLHP

Phase I TEST: Ten 60 – mph impending skid (ABS) maximum deceleration rate stops

Stop #1 Stop #2 Stop #3 Stop #4 Stop #5 Stop #6 Stop #7 Stop #8 Stop #9 Stop #10

Initial Velocity 59.93 mph 59.62 mph 60.04 mph 59.47 mph 60.76 mph 59.05 mph 59.10 mph 58.93 mph 59.79 mph 60.46 mph

Stopping Distance 148.21 feet 149.12 feet 143.75 feet 153.51 feet 152.82 feet 132.00 feet 142.43 feet 147.39 feet 141.07 feet 150.09 feet

Deceleration Rate 2 26.06 ft/s 2 25.64 ft/s 2 26.97 ft/s 2 24.78 ft/s 2 25.99 ft/s 2 28.41 ft/s 2 26.38 ft/s 2 25.34 ft/s 2 27.26 ft/s 2 26.20 ft/s

26.30 ft/s2

AVERAGE DECELERATION RATE Phase II TEST: Ten 60 – mph impending skid (ABS) maximum deceleration rate stops




26.00 ft/s2


Yes/No No Yes Yes

OVERALL AVERAGE DECEL. RATE: Projected Stopping Distance from 60.0 mph 148.1 feet

76 76


26.15 ft/s2





MAKE & MODEL: Harley-Davidson Electra Glide FLHTP







25.97 ft/s2





25.48 ft/s2



Yes/No No Yes Yes

OVERALL AVERAGE DECEL. RATE:

25.72 ft/s2

Projected Stopping Distance from 60.0 mph 150.5 feet

77 77





MAKE & MODEL: BMW R 1200 RTP







27.05 ft/s2





27.15 ft/s2


Yes/No No Yes Yes

OVERALL AVERAGE DECEL. RATE: Projected Stopping Distance from 60.0 mph 142.9 feet

78 78


27.10 ft/s2





MAKE & MODEL: Kawasaki Concours







27.60 ft/s2





27.32 ft/s2



Yes/No No Yes Yes

OVERALL AVERAGE DECEL. RATE:

27.46 ft/s2

Projected Stopping Distance from 60.0 mph 141.0 feet

79 79

COMMUNICATIONS TEST OBJECTIVE Rate each test motorcycle’s ability to accommodate the required communications and emergency warning equipment and assess the relative difficulty of such installations.

TEST METHODOLOGY The installation and communications portion of the evaluation will be conducted by personnel from DIT Communications based upon the relative difficulty of the necessary installations. Each factor will be graded on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 representing “totally unacceptable,” 5 representing “average,” and 10 representing “superior.” The scores will be averaged to minimize personal prejudice for or against any given motorcycle.

FLHP ROAD KING

FLHTP ELECTRA GLIDE

BMW R1200RTP

KAWASAKI CONCOURS

6.67

6.67

6.33

9.00

8.33 7.00 7.67 7.00 8.00

8.67 7.00 7.67 7.00 8.00

8.33 7.33 8.00 7.33 6.00

9.00 8.00 8.67 6.33 6.00

7.33 8.33

8.00 8.33

6.33 7.67

8.00 9.00

7.67

7.67

7.33

7.33

6.00 6.33 7.33

6.00 6.33 7.33

6.67 7.00 8.67

8.67 9.00 8.67

87.67

88.67

86.99

97.67

Dash Access Ignition Fuse terminal block Radio-Siren Mounting location Radio-Installation Radio Box Position Emergency Lights Radio Interference

Radio Box Radio Installation Antenna Installation Emergency Lights Installation

Engine Access Radio Power Conn. Power/Cont.Cable Accessibility to Battery

TOTAL

80

80

For Your Information About the National Institute of Justice A component of the Office of Justice Programs, NIJ is the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ’s mission is to advance scientific research, development and evaluation to enhance the administration of justice and public safety. NIJ’s principal authorities are derived from the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (see 42 USC §§ 3721–3723). The NIJ Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the needs of the field. The Institute actively solicits the views of criminal justice and other professionals and researchers to inform its search for the knowledge and tools to guide policy and practice. Strategic Goals NIJ has seven strategic goals grouped into three categories: Creating relevant knowledge and tools 1. Partner with state and local practitioners and policymakers to identify social science research and technology needs. 2. Create scientific, relevant and reliable knowledge — with a particular emphasis on terrorism, violent crime, drugs and crime, cost-effectiveness and community-based efforts — to enhance the administration of justice and public safety. 3. Develop affordable and effective tools and technologies to enhance the administration of justice and public safety. Dissemination 4. Disseminate relevant knowledge and information to practitioners and policymakers in an understandable, timely and concise manner. 5. Act as an honest broker to identify the information, tools and technologies that respond to the needs of stakeholders. Agency management 6. Practice fairness and openness in the research and development process. 7. Ensure professionalism, excellence, accountability, cost-effectiveness and integrity in the management and conduct of NIJ activities and programs. Program Areas In addressing these strategic challenges, the Institute is involved in the following program areas: crime control and prevention, including policing; drugs and crime; justice systems and offender behavior, including corrections; violence and victimization; communications and information technologies; critical incident response; investigative and forensic sciences, including DNA; less lethal technologies; officer protection; education and training technologies; testing and standards; technology assistance to law enforcement and corrections agencies; field testing of promising programs; and international crime control. In addition to sponsoring research and development and technology assistance, NIJ evaluates programs, policies and technologies. NIJ communicates its research and evaluation findings through conferences and print and electronic media.

81 81

About the Law Enforcement and Corrections Standards and Testing Program The Law Enforcement and Corrections Standards and Testing Program is sponsored by the Office of Science and Technology of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The program responds to the mandate of the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, which directed NIJ to encourage research and development to improve the criminal justice system and to disseminate the results to federal, state and local agencies. The Law Enforcement and Corrections Standards and Testing Program is an applied research effort that determines the technological needs of justice system agencies, sets minimum performance standards for specific devices, tests commercially available equipment against those standards, and disseminates the standards and the test results to criminal justice agencies nationwide and internationally. The program operates through the following: •

The Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory Council (LECTAC), consisting of nationally recognized criminal justice practitioners from federal, state and local agencies, assesses technological needs and sets priorities for research programs and items to be evaluated and tested.

•

The Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology develops voluntary national performance standards for compliance testing to ensure that individual items of equipment are suitable for use by criminal justice agencies. The equipment standards developed by OLES are based on laboratory evaluation of commercially available products in order to devise precise test methods that can be universally applied by any qualified testing laboratory and to establish minimum performance requirements for each attribute of a piece of equipment that is essential to how it functions. OLES-developed standards can serve as design criteria for manufacturers or as the basis for equipment evaluation. The application of the standards, which are highly technical in nature, is augmented through the publication of equipment performance reports and user guides. Individual jurisdictions may use the standards in their own laboratories to test equipment, have equipment tested on their behalf using the standards, or cite the standards in procurement specifications.

•

The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC)-National, operated by a grantee, supervises a national compliance testing program conducted by independent laboratories. The standards developed by OLES serve as performance benchmarks against which commercial equipment is measured. In addition, NIJ has begun a new process for developing some standards using Special Technical Committees (STCs), which include practitioners, scientists and subject matter experts. OLES participates in the STC process. The facilities, personnel and testing capabilities of the independent laboratories are evaluated by OLES prior to testing each item of equipment. In addition, OLES helps NLECTC staff review and analyze data. Test results are published in consumer product reports designed to help justice system procurement officials make informed purchasing decisions.

Publications are available at no charge through NLECTC. Some documents are also available online through the Justice Technology Information Network (JUSTNET), the center’s World Wide Web site. To request a document or additional information, call (800) 248-2742 or (301) 519-5069 or write: National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center-National 2277 Research Boulevard Mail Stop 8J Rockville, MD 20850 E-mail: [email protected] World Wide Web address: http://www.justnet.org

82 82

About the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center System The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) system recently completed a reorganization that will better enable the system to carry out its critical mission to assist state, major city and county, rural, tribal and border, as well as federal law enforcement, corrections and other criminal justice agencies in addressing their technology needs and challenges. Originally created in 1994 as a program of the National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ’s) Office of Science and Technology, the NLECTC system has realigned its outreach efforts into three new centers: the States, Major Cities and Counties Regional Center; the Small, Rural, Tribal and Border Regional Center; and the Alaska Regional Center. The States, Major Cities and Counties Regional Center offers a resource and outreach mechanism for state, major city and county criminal justice system partners, with a mission of ensuring that larger criminal justice agencies (those having 50 or more sworn personnel) have unbiased access to a full range of relevant scientific and technology-related information. The Small, Rural, Tribal and Border Regional Center publicizes its programs and services to small, rural, tribal and border agencies across the country. The Alaska Regional Center serves as a conduit for agencies in Alaska. The efforts of these centers complement those of NLECTC-National, which coordinates NIJ’s Compliance Testing program and standards development efforts for a variety of equipment used in the public safety arena, and the Centers of Excellence (CoEs), which support NIJ’s research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E) efforts in specific portfolio areas. The CoEs focus on the following topic areas: Communications Technologies; Electronic Crime Technology; Forensics Technology; Information and Sensor Systems; and Weapons and Protective Systems. The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Office of Law Enforcement Standards provides scientific and research support to these efforts. As a whole, the NLECTC system provides: •

Scientific and technical support to NIJ’s RDT&E projects.

•

Support for the transfer and adoption of technology into practice by law enforcement and corrections agencies, courts and crime laboratories.

•

Assistance in developing and disseminating equipment performance standards and technology guides.

•

Assistance in the demonstration, testing and evaluation of criminal justice tools and technologies.

•

Technology information and general and specialized technology assistance.

•

Assistance in setting NIJ’s research agenda by convening practitioner-based advisory groups to help identify criminal justice technology needs and gaps.

The NLECTC system supports NIJ’s RDT&E process and goal of setting research priorities based on practitioner needs by sponsoring a series of Technology Working Groups and Constituent Advisory Groups, who provide input to the Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory Council. Together, these groups form a bridge between the criminal justice community and the NIJ Office of Science and Technology. For more information, call (800) 248-2742, e-mail [email protected] or visit http://www.justnet.org.

83 83

About the Office of Law Enforcement Standards The Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) was established as a matrix management organization in 1971 through a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Departments of Justice and Commerce based on the recommendations of the President’s Commission on Crime. OLES’ mission is to apply science and technology to the needs of the criminal justice community, including law enforcement, corrections, forensic science and the fire service. While its major objective is to develop minimum performance standards, which are promulgated as voluntary national standards, OLES also undertakes studies leading to the publication of technical reports and user guides. The areas of research investigated by OLES include clothing, communication systems, emergency equipment, investigative aids, protective equipment, security systems, vehicles, weapons, and analytical techniques and standard reference materials used by the forensic science community. The composition of OLES’ projects varies depending on priorities of the criminal justice community at any given time and, as necessary, draws on the resources of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. OLES assists law enforcement and criminal justice agencies in acquiring, on a cost-effective basis, the high-quality resources they need to do their jobs. To accomplish this, OLES: • • • •

Develops methods for testing equipment performance and examining evidentiary materials. Develops standards for equipment and operating procedures. Develops standard reference materials. Performs other scientific and engineering research as required.

Since the program began in 1971, OLES has coordinated the development of standards, user guides and advisory reports on topics that range from performance parameters of police patrol vehicles, to performance reports on various speed-measuring devices, to soft body armor testing, to analytical procedures for developing DNA profiles. The application of technology to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice community continues to increase. The proper adoption of the products resulting from emerging technologies and the assessment of equipment performance, systems, methodologies, etc., used by criminal justice practitioners constitute critical issues having safety and legal ramifications. The consequences of inadequate equipment performance or inadequate test methods can range from inconvenient to catastrophic. In addition, these deficiencies can adversely affect the general population when they increase public safety costs, preclude arrest or result in evidence found to be inadmissible in court.

84 84

85

86